This paper examines a scenario involving a professor and his graduate student in health sciences, in which both parties commit ethical violations related to research authorship, fellowship funding, and professional conduct. The professor abuses his position of power by withholding conference policy information, contributing nothing to the research, and later demanding co-authorship. The graduate student violates ethical principles by using an external fellowship to produce research for an unaffiliated conference. Drawing on the American Evaluation Association's Guiding Principles and public health ethics frameworks, the paper evaluates each party's conduct, considers the student's available courses of action, and concludes with a recommendation for the most ethically sound path forward.
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: it maps a concrete scenario onto established ethical frameworks rather than discussing ethics in the abstract. By citing specific principles by number and subdivision, the author shows how professional codes function as analytical tools, not just background context.
The paper opens with a thorough description of the power imbalance underlying the scenario, then moves to identify each party's violations. It pivots to a decision-analysis section weighing three possible courses of action for the student, followed by a brief critique of the professor's self-perceived reasonableness. A concise conclusion synthesizes the analysis and recommends the most ethical path forward. The structure mirrors a professional ethics report: identify the problem, assign responsibility, evaluate options, and recommend action.
The relationship between the professor and the graduate student is ripe for abuse. There is a substantial imbalance of power, knowledge, training, and experience between them. First, the professor is the graduate student's faculty supervisor, who has the power to significantly affect her grades and, ultimately, her success or failure as a graduate student. He also possesses far greater knowledge, training, and experience regarding professor-student relationships, research, academic papers, and the requirements surrounding authorship.
Second, the professor is a conference program chair who has the power to significantly affect the student's standing in their professional community — not only domestically but internationally, given that the conference is held abroad. He has greater knowledge of their professional community, of the norms governing research and authorship among fellow researchers, and of the conference's specific requirements. He is also funded to attend the conference while the student is unfunded and has no means to travel internationally.
These circumstances, which are consistent in the degree of imbalance even if they differ in their specifics, place an obligation on the professor to treat the graduate student with greater care and consideration than he would extend to a researcher of equal standing. Beyond the imbalance in their relationship, both parties are professional researchers who should adhere to certain ethical standards and courtesies regarding research, contributions, and authorship — particularly given that the student's research is funded by an external fellowship to which the professor is not accountable.
On the given facts, the graduate student's violation stems from the fact that she performed research and wrote a resulting paper for her professor's conference while funded by an external fellowship. Ethically — and possibly legally, depending on the terms of her fellowship — research is owned by the person or entity that funded it. The graduate student knows or should know this, and her behavior is not excused by the power imbalance in her relationship with the professor, the importance of his committee, the significance of her research, the value of being published, or any other consideration. By accepting funding from her external fellowship, she was not free to promise or deliver research and a resulting paper to her professor for use at his conference. Whatever her reasons for doing so, she violated the American Evaluation Association's Guiding Principles under Subdivision C: Integrity/Honesty, Principles 1 and 7, by failing to honestly negotiate with and inform the professor, the conference, and the source of her external fellowship about this research and the resulting paper (American Evaluation Association, 1994, revisions through 2004).
The graduate student's ethical violation, however, pales in comparison to the professor's multiple violations. He certainly violated the American Evaluation Association's Principles 1 and 7 under Subdivision C: Integrity/Honesty, and Subdivision D: Respect for People, Principle 5 (American Evaluation Association, 1994, revisions through 2004) in several ways. First, he abused his senior relationship with the student by having her perform research for which he obviously intends to take credit without contributing any work of his own (Public Health Leadership Society, 2002, p. 2). Second, he abused his superior knowledge, training, and experience by failing to inform the student of the conference's requirement that papers be presented by their authors until the eleventh hour — after her paper had already been accepted (Thomas, 2004, p. 7). Third, he abused his position as a fellow researcher by encouraging and allowing the student to perform research for his own conference while she was funded by an external fellowship that ethically owns the research and resulting paper (Public Health Leadership Society, 2002, pp. 2–3; Thomas, 2004, p. 7). He contributed nothing to the research or paper, yet then attempted to claim at least partial credit for it (Kass, 2001). The totality of his actions reflects a disregard of the basic ethical values of justice, virtue, and human rights (Thomas, 2004, p. 4).
The professor committed several ethical violations. He used his superior educational and professional position to induce unethical behavior by the graduate student and to claim her research and resulting paper as his own without contributing to either the research or the writing. He also acted unethically as a fellow researcher by inducing that behavior and treating its fruits as his own. The graduate student, for her part, acted unethically by using her external fellowship to perform research and produce a paper for an unaffiliated conference, even though the fruits of that work belong to the source of her fellowship. Given these ethical breaches, the graduate student has several available courses of action. The most defensible of these appears to be submitting the paper to the source of her external fellowship and withdrawing it from consideration at the professor's conference.
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.